If you answer the question - you get a 5,
but you have to pick one. Evasions get a 1.

If you HAD to, who would you rather have sex with, and why:

George Walker Bush, or William Jefferson Clinton?

(Wow, I just noticed that "George Walker Bush" is kinda close to
"Johnnie Walker Black". I wonder what Big Barbara's well scotch is. )

A:

Dear Song of Solomon Reader,

Needless to say, this is a somewhat distasteful question, not merely because of
the obvious but also because of the blatantly disgusting nature of both
individuals. I think I would go with Bush, however. After all, he's killed
almost as many people in Texas as David killed in the Old Testament. And we know
God loved David, despite David's love affair with Jonathan. So I suspect God
could tolerate my relationship with Bush. (Of course, I suspect I wouldn't have
to worry about actually engaging in any vile activity since, with all the
cocaine and liquor Bush has consumed, I doubt his system works any more. Plus, a
man who would be severely reprimanded by the military and go AWOL probably has
trouble achieving rigidity as well. Of course, Bush might simply ask me to play
the "dominant" role, but I wouldn't know where to begin. How does one
find the a***h*** on someone whose whole being makes him an a***h***?)

Praying for more appealing alternatives,
Brother Harry Hardwick

Q:

We should be arguing over religous/theological
points, not condemning each other's personalities. Yes, there are people on this
board who live just to upset others.

A:

Dear Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm,

While I agree with your points entirely, with all due respect, you might as well
ask for an end to world hunger or a closing of the ozone hole. Christians have
been involved in personal attacks since the onset of Christianity. The personal
assaults began with the rift between Paul and other disciples and have escalated
since. We may never know how many people were violently slaughtered by the
Catholics in their Crusades and by Protestants in the Inquisition. Six million
Jews were slaughtered in the name of Christ in World War II. And while the Jews
and Moslems seem to garner the most headlines today, Christians are still
killing in His name today (just ask the parents of a bashing victim). Fire and
brimstone, hell and damnation, hate and judgment (cleverly disguised as
"Love the sinner, hate the sin") are the modus operandi of
fundamentalists. But don't despair, dear. This is as God ordered it. Even a
cursory review of either testament of the Holy Bible reveals orders from God and
His son to kill those who rub them the wrong way.

We can at least take comfort in the fact that the participants here are merely
verbally sparring and not physically incapacitating one another. (Praise God for
the separation of cyberspace.)

Praying that at least religious slaughter will minimize the ravages of
overpopulation,

Brother Harry Hardwick

Q:

Christianity claims to oppose killing,
prejudice, and all sorts of other things espoused by many christians. I noticed
earlier on this board an argument about homosexuality. I have a few friends who
are, as one person on this board put it, "practicing homosexuals".
(which is really too bad, because one of them is *hot*!) They are my friends,
and have been since "sex" was a naughty word, yet I hear people who
have never met them saying that they are evil, sinners. That's bull.

The new testament overrules the old, correct? Does Jesus say "Judge not
lest ye be judged," or does Jesus say "kill the $%^*ing homos, my
children. They are but fags for your bonfires! Mwahahahahahaha!"?

A:

Dear Sodomite Sympathizer,

Yes, dear, I'm afraid they are. But I'm sure you're not surprised. After all, as
a group, Christians are responsible for about as much murder as any other entity
to have existed. Whether it was the Catholics with their Crusades, or the
Protestants with our Inquisition, witch burning, etc., we seem to thrive on
blood letting. It is the Christian way. Indeed, perhaps the only entity
responsible for more killing than us is God, Himself.

It is interesting, to say the least, that we seem to single out homosexuals for
our . . . "disapproval" (the real word, of course, is
"hate," but we don't use that term any more because it is no longer
"Christianity-correct," notwithstanding its accuracy). The Bible says
men who marry divorced women, as well as men who divorce women for any reason
other than cheating, are adulterers -- sinners on par with homosexuals. Yet, you
don't see "Focus on the Family," the "American Family
Association," Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or any of the other entities to
the right of Atilla the Hun condemning divorcees and their spouses. The Bible
says any man who imagines sexual contact with a woman to whom he is not married
is every bit as much a "sinner" as a homosexual (Matthew 5:28). Yet
none of the above entities berate heterosexual men who have fantasies. We are,
of course, the ultimate in hypocrites. But then, look at the example we have to
follow. If you look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary, you're likely to
see a picture of the KJV 1611 in the margin.

Alas, many homosexuals are kind, caring, compassionate people, who live
monogamous lives with their sole loved ones -- but no matter how good they are,
no matter how wonderful their acts, they are nonetheless Hellbound because of
inexplicable passages in the Bible. (But then, so is every man who continues to
have fantasies about women. After all, you are only forgiven of a sin if you
really INTEND not to commit again. How many men do you know who, once the
kleenex has done its trick, HONESTLY intend never to think about such matters
again.)

Homosexuals and heterosexual males who, throughout their lives, continued to
fantasize about having sex with someone other than their wives, are going to the
same place. Hey, latter guys, better make sure the soap dish isn't too slippery.

Praying all will recognize the blatant hypocrisy of singling out the so-called
"homosexual conduct sin" for emphasis,
Brother Harry Hardwick

Q:

If Genesis is "In the beginning"
and Revelations is (At the end) what book of the bible is technically (not
numerically) the middle of the bible?

A:

Dear Statistician,

Another trick question. The answer, of course, is Genesis, chapter 1. After all,
we know from scientific data that the Earth has been here for millions of years.
It's actually among the younger planets in the galaxy. And the universe has
existed far longer (billions of years). Yet, we know the generations of humans
described in the Bible encompass only about 4,000 years. That means the midway
point falls in that very first chapter of Genesis, between God's creation of the
world and His creation of humans.

Now, some may disagree, noting the Bible said God made everything in six days.
But a cursory review of the chapter reveals God made the Earth before he made
the Sun. Since there was no sun, a "day" was not limited to a 24-hour
period. In fact, a single day, in creation times, must have encompassed millions
of years (actually, billions, when you consider the rest of the universe). If
this sounds a bit convulted, it certainly shouldn't when compared to other
passages in Genesis. We know, for instance, that God made plants on the third
day, which, of course, is bizarre since he hadn't even made the Sun yet, and
plants can't survive without the photosynthesis driven by the Sun (Genesis 1:11,
14-19). We also know God spent the second day creating a solid firmament He
called Heaven that separted the higher waters from the low waters (Genesis
1:6-8). Of course, this would preclude exploration of space and means NASA is a
giant fraud. Moreover, Genesis blatantly contradicts itself in back-to-back
chapters. Chapter 1 says God created the animals and then man (1:25-27). The
following chapter says God created man and then the animals (2:18-22). I hardly
think my explanation constitutes any greater extrapolation than one would have
to make to believe any aspect of the creation story.

Praying all will recognize that you can believe secular (a/k/a Satanic) science
or you can believe the Bible, but you can't believe both,
Brother Harry Hardwick

Q:

If original sin was so bad, why wasn't it
included in the ten commandments?

A:

Dear Hellbound Inquisitor,

Original sin was obviously a set-up. God is omnipotent and all-knowing. He
therefore knew Eve was going to nibble on that fruit before He ever created Adam
and Eve. God wanted them out of Heaven. After all, there was no Irish Spring,
Right Guard or Close-up back then, so you can imagine how unpleasant humans
would have become had they populated what was intended to be Utopia.

God told Adam he and his plaything could eat any fruit in the garden except the
fruit from one tree, which God then enticingly described as the tree of
knowledge. How could anyone resist? When Eve bit into it, God feigned surprise
and anger and expelled these unpleasant beings from His home, and sent them to a
place where all sorts of horrible things were destined to happen to them, thus
providing hours of sci-fi entertainment.

Of course, knowledge doesn't come from the fruit of a tree. That was all a ruse.
Once Adam and Eve were out of His hair, God had no need to prohibit the
consumption of fruits and vegetables any further.

Praying all will recognize that Eve, the first woman, did far more damage to
humankind than any Hitler could ever accomplish,
Brother Harry Hardwick

Q:

Sometimes when the collection plate comes
around I take out some money.

A:

Dear CC,

Shame on you! Do you realize that, if everyone acted as you, Catholic churches
around the country might have to go without chalice-polishing, pew-staining,
stained glass window-designing, designer robe-buying and marble
column-installing. I hope you'll think twice next time about placing your own
interests above gawdy ornate chapel-constructing. Were there many like you, the
Catholics might have to move their bingo parlors to the Strip in Vegas. Oh well,
at least their churches would fit right in.

Praying all will learn to place aesthetics above the needs of the poor,
Brother Harry Hardwick
Landover Baptist Church (landoverbaptist.com)

Q:

I'm just curious as to what people's opinion
on this is. What do you believe happens when you pray for forgiveness? Does God
give you a clean slate and tell everyone you offended to lay off of you or you
are crossing him? Or do you punished or forgiven by God through the people on
Earth? Or do you believe something totally different? Furthermore, if you
honestly believe God forgave you for whatever sin you committed, that you are
free to act anyway you please even if it means committing the same sin over and
over again?

A:

Dear 20 Questions,

You tended to reach more closely to the truth the further you probed. You see,
as shocking as it may seem, God forgives all of our sins, no matter how heinous,
so long as we ask Jesus into our lives. In other words, you can murder, rape,
rob, pillage, plunder, sexually molest or listen to Motley Crew albums backwards
and you're still going to Heaven, so long as you accept Jesus at some point
before you are called to glory. This means, of course, that Heaven will be
populated by some of the most egregious humans ever known to mankind whose one
claim to fame, as my dear friend, Betty Bowers, is wont to point out, is an
impeccable sense of timing. If Timothy McVeigh told that priest who visited him
that he, that moment, accepted Jesus as His Savior, Tim will be sipping
aperitifs and enjoying the view from his skybox in Heaven, come Judgment Day.
But make no mistake: there is still a significant deterrent to sinning for too
long a period before acquiescing to God -- you never know when or how your life
will be taken. You could be the recipient of lightning, the unintended target of
a drive-by shooting, or the second fatal victim of a Laura Bush driving
accident. If you were unsaved at the time, you are going straight to Hell. This,
of course, means that Heaven will consist largely of evil folks who suffered
long-term terminal illnesses and had a chance to accept our Savior just before
their predicted deaths. Living in Heaven may very well be like walking the
streets of Manhattan very late at night.

Praying all will have at least 10 seconds notice before experiencing their
terminal fates,
Brother Harry Hardwick
Landover Baptist Church (landoverbaptist.com)

Q:

What's worse....armpit hair or butt hair?

A:

Dear Follicly-Challenged,

Butt hair, of course, because it is much more difficult to remove. However,
women of many Pentecostal, Assembly of God and Church of Christ (pronounced
"Churcha Chrast) and other charismatic churches aren't allowed to cut any
hair from any place on their bodies at any time -- which is why the repeated
sightings of Big Foot always occur very near old country churches.

Praying that, upon His return, Jesus won't be excluded from too many venues
based on His grooming,
Brother Harry Hardwick
Landover Baptist Church (landoverbaptist.com)

Q:

Is it possible the the CIA or military can
listen in on our prayers with sophisticated mind reading listening devices?

A:

Dear 98,

I suspect they can, and I feel sorry for the poor Joe whose job it is to do so.
He has to listen to all the trite, inane prayers from people like those who post
on this board, undoubtedly delivered in an illiterate, borderline retarded
vernacular. Since God's job is to listen to this every day, is it any wonder He
has a tendency to go a bit loco and start killing people for somewhat mundane
misdoings?

Praying no one from the nuclear weapons division of the military has been
assigned the "listening in" task,
Brother Harry Hardwick

Q:

Why do Catholic Priest's kiss their scarf's
before they put them on over their robes? Is it to wipe off the lipstick?

A:

Dear Fashion-Conscious One,

No. No self-respecting homo wearing flowing robes and sipping wine from a gold
goblet would dare sully his ensemble with lipstick stains. Besides, all the
lipstick has already been removed before mass. You can find it on the altar
boys' pelvises. Priests kiss their scarves for the same reason drag queens hug
and cling to their gowns. They are thanking God for the opportunity to wear
something so fabulous.

Praying for the success of the new financial arrangement between the Vatican and
Prada (after all, where would Catholic money go if not to ritual?),
Brother Harry Hardwick